Benghazi merits deeper examination

Updated 11:13 pm, Monday, November 5, 2012

The relentless drip, drip, drip dominating the final days of the presidential campaign was the release of disturbing information about the al-Qaida-inspired, Sept. 11, 2012, terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

The slow release of solid information about the attack is politically and institutionally corrosive. Speculations and rumors magnify the corrosive effects, but the rumors are spurred by the Obama administration's troubling reluctance to answer legitimate questions 50 days after the attack.

The administration's reluctance compounds the damaging effects of its insistence that an anti-Muslim Internet video, the product of a California crank, incited anti-American violence in Egypt and Libya. In what political opponents characterize as a guilty echo of Richard Nixon's pliable accounts of Watergate, Obama's video-did-it narrative has become “non-operative” regarding Benghazi.

Most Popular

President Barack Obama himself now claims he called the incident a terror attack on Sept. 12, but his claim relies on a very generous parsing of his statement. The Washington Post's media blog concluded, “... reporting that the president referred to an ‘act of terrorism' (on Sept. 12) appears to overstep the factual terrain.”

Obama hedged on Sept. 12. For another week, senior administration officials continued to condemn the video, leaving the public with the definite impression that the Benghazi assault was spontaneous and the video, protected by the U.S.' fundamental commitment to free expression, incited explicable anger. On Sept. 18, White House press secretary Jay Carney asserted that the video “precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi.”

Why would the administration insinuate a video directly, and the U.S. indirectly, were to blame for Benghazi? In 2009, Obama intimated that his presidency would dramatically change Arab Muslim perceptions of America. His sympathetic political appeals to Muslims were “smart diplomacy” that would dampen militant hostility. His America no longer waged a War on Terror, but conducted an “overseas contingency operation.” Though he has never equated killing Osama bin Laden with defeating al-Qaida, Obama has insistently touted that raid and his administration's aggressive drone attacks on al-Qaida as evidence that he has weakened al-Qaida.

The Benghazi attack, if it proved to be a planned attack rather than a spontaneous response to a video created without Obama's approval, would call into question at a politically inconvenient moment the fundamental assumptions that guide his administration's Middle Eastern diplomacy — in particular, the history-changing impact of his own personality and his insistence that his diplomacy is smart. A planned attack would also demonstrate that the terrorist war on the U.S. continues.

The video-did-it narrative gave Obama a political shield to deflect criticism of personally dear policies and achievements. It also gave the old community organizer a rhetorical cudgel to wield against intolerant, Muslim-despising bigots in the U.S. Obama then stayed with the video narrative because he and his campaign advisers believed it was a foreign policy shield and domestic political sword.

Truth will out. Hard facts have emerged — facts that explain the assault far better than the video-did-it tripe. Administration sources acknowledge that the attack lasted seven hours. A seven-hour firefight in a city is sustained combat engagement. It indicates the attackers had plenty of ammo.

I've also learned that two of our dead were former SEALs. The seven hours they fought is plenty of time to send reinforcements — or at least an air strike. Did they request support, as one report claims? If so, were their requests denied? Who denied them? Was military support denied?